Crowd Density

[16 min] [...] This level of crowding would take military discipline, total compliance and a lot of practice.

The argument seems to be taken from Germar Rudolf's The Rudolf Report, p. 204, where it reads:

"How did they get these 1,000 people to pack themselves tightly together, as one can expect from soldiers who have practiced this for weeks on a parade ground? The only solution is that this must have been practiced just as intensively and disciplined as soldiers do it. And of course, at some point in this alleged scenario, people had to realize that they were not gathering for a shower, thus resulting in panic and lack of orderly cooperation with their murderers’ procedures."

~ Germar Rudolf, Rudolf Report, 2011

Note that denierbud considers a packing of 8 people per m² impossible, while Rudolf even denies that a "packing" as low as 5 people per m² was feasible in the gas chambers.

The issue of crowd density in the homicidal gas chambers can be broken down into three questions:

What is the range of the gas chamber crowd density as estimated by eyewitnesses?

What is necessary to densify crowds?

What densities can be achieved in practice?

According to the estimations of the former Sonderkommando prisoners, the capacity of the gas chambers of crematorium 2 was 2000 (Jaacov Gabbai, Josef Sackar, Leon Cohen) to 3000 (Marcel Nadsari, Filip Müller, Miklos Nyszli, Dov Paisikovic) people. With an area of 210 m² (neglecting the space of the concrete support pillars and gas introduction devices) this yields a crowd density of 10 to 14 people per m². Possible sources for the figures are hearsay knowledge from SS men (also via Kapos), deduction from the oven capacity based on the ovens loading scheme and crude estimation of the masses by themselves.

The Auschwitz commandant Rudolf Höß was overseeing and organizing the mass extermination and should have been in a good position to estimate the gas chamber capacity. In his Nuremberg interrogation of 1 April 1946 he estimated that the gas chambers "could accommodate 2,000 persons". In a note on the technical realization of the mass murder to the Nuremberg prison psychologist Gustave Gilbert, Höß wrote that "it was possible in one gas chamber to put to death up to 2,500 persons". These figures translate into crowd densities of 10 to 12 people per m².

The second question was already addressed in the previous posting in the section "gas chamber loading": High crowd densities can be obtained when confined people are compacted by some external force (such as crowd pressure). Accordingly, highly packed crowds require neither any military discipline, nor any practice, nor any compliance.

Lastly, what is the maximum crowd density then? There is no single figure, since the density of a crowd when its individuals are in contact is depending on the physical constitution of the individuals. For example, a group of obese persons dressed in Winter clothing will need significantly more space than a group of the same size of anorexic, skinny persons in swimming trunks. Men take more space than women than children. Western Europeans in average more than East-Asians. People in 2013 more than in 1913. Etc.

The term "super dense crush load" with up to 16 persons per m² has been coined with regards to the Mumbai (India) public railway system:

"Against the original design offering a capacity of 1,800 passengers (900 sitting plus 900 standing) per nine-car train, at present a nine-car train, carries 5,000 passengers (900 sitting plus more than 4,000 people in standing condition) during peak hours. This has resulted in, what is known as, super dense crush loading conditions in Mumbai resulting in a passenger loading of 16 passengers per square metre, which is the highest in the world."

The figure should be taken with a pinch of salt, as people may also overcrowd the seats, which was apparently not considered here and determining the number of people in a train rushing home or to work seems somewhat challenging (and the figures may be just a crude estimate).

The range of practically achievable crowd densities has been studied both by laboratory experiments and analysis of film and photo footage from mass gatherings.

Peak
densities of 8 - 10 m² have been estimated for the so called "Love
Parade" in Duisburg on 24 July 2010 (expert report of Keith Still, 9 December 2011). The crowd forces were high and resulted in 21 deaths.

During the pilgram gathering at the Jamaraat Bridge in Saudi Arabia, peak crowd densities of "10 persons per square meter or slightly more" were determined from film footage (Johansson, Helbing, Al-Abideen, Al-Bosta, From Crowd Dynamics to Crowd Safety: A Video-Based Analysis Advances in Complex Systems, 11, 4, 2008). The crowd forces were high and resulted in numerous injured and dead people.

For the Hillsborough disaster on 15 April 1989 in England with 96 deads, a peak density of 10 people per m² was estimated from photographs (Nicholson and Roebuck, The investigation of the Hillsborough disaster by the Health and Safety Executive, Safety Science, 18, 1995)

Experiments performed by the British Health and Safety Executive with adults of both sexes "suggested that crowd densities of 10 persons/m² could be achieved for periods of 2 minutes without distress." (source as before)

Japanese
researchers have measured peak densities of about 10 persons per m² for
crowds of Japanese students compacted only by relatively moderate crowd
forces (Shimada and Naoi, An Experimental Study on the Evacuation Flow of Crowd Including Wheelchair Users,
Fire Science and Technology, 25, 1, 2006).

Since the average weight and height of the gas chamber victims was most likely lower than in either of the incidents and experiments and taking into account that they were naked (plus that higher crowd forces were acting in the gas chamber than in the Japanese study), it stands to reason that the practical peak density in the gas chamber could have been even higher than 10 people per m² and thus that the average density may have very well been around 10 people per m². This is in fact corroborated by a contemporary German document from 5 June 1942 that provides an empirical figure of 9 - 10 people per m² specifically for homicidal mass gassings.

In conclusion, the lower estimate of the crowd density provided by the eyewitnesses seems feasible and this already rebuts the Revisionist argument. This does not rule out that also the upper range of the estimations of 12 and 14 people m² was also achievable and realized, but this specific technical detail is not relevant anymore for the question if there had been homicidal mass gassings in Auschwitz (with a high proportion of emaciated people and/or children, even such crowd densities may have been possible/there is no reason to assume that they were not possible under favorable circumstances).

Jews in the Sonderkommando

[16 min] And it’s not believable that the Germans would have Jews of all the ethnicies of Europe run the killing operation since they are the ethnic that was most likely to format a revolt and a mutiny.

1. Argument from personal incredulity vs. concrete evidence

2. The presence of Jewish Sonderkommando workers, especially when originating from the same country as the victims, may have eased the Jewish victims at the extermination sites resulting in a more smooth killing process.

3. Jews were the most practicable workers to recruit for the Germans for the extermination sites, as they were outlawed and could have been most easily liquidated if nessecary and also most easily replaced from the stream of deported Jews to Auschwitz.

Moreover, according to the National Socialist ideology, the Jews were racially the lowest and most inferiour people. If you are holding this view, it stands to reason to pick them as slave laborers for the most gruesome work you are dealing with.

Obviously, mutiny was no significant concern for the German paramilitary forces. The predecessor of the Jewish Sonderkommando in Birkenau was a small
prisoner detail working in the crematorium in the Auschwitz main camp.
Most of prisoners were Jewish, in particular those clearing the gas
chamber. At these early trials, the SS experienced that Jewish prisoners were
unlikely to "format a revolt and a mutiny" when forced to clear a gas chambers of Jewish victims and carry out the body disposal.

Crowd pressure vs. Gas Chamber Door

[17 min] At some point in the gassing operation people would panic and search towards the door. How hard could they push? Consider the Heysel Stadium disaster of 1985, where 39 people were killed [...] They pushed over a concrete wall, so in the gas chamber how hard could they push on this door and what does the door look like.

[18 min] In the movie potrayed it looks strong. But if we have actual photos of the cremation ovens under construction and finished, might there be a photo of a gas chamber door somewhere? To find out we to the US Holocaust Memorial Museum website and look up gassing operations. And scroll down to further readings to find auther Jean-Claude Pressac. In his book Auschwitz: Technique and operation of the gas chambers we find numerous photos of the type of door used though not the actual door.

Gabbai: "You know it takes about 4, 5 minutes to die except the peopel who are infront where the gas is coming there it takes about a couple of minutes."

We see wood slads, this is tape to keep the gas from coming out through the cracks. This flimsey rod iron band is what would hold 2000 panicking people inside. It pivets there, swinging this way. The doors were mate by the inmates themselves. On page 46 we read, 'this type of gas tight door, with the same method of closing was to be used as it stood in the homicidal gas chambers'.

[19 min] But up here it says that this is 'the gas tight door of the Kanada I delousing gas chamber'. In other words, behind this door would be a room full of blankets and clothes to be fumigated. But we are supposed to believe that the same door design with no added fortifications would be used to hold 2000 panicking people in a gas chamber

Gabbai: "They get undress and right away they were going direct to the chambers. And since it takes a few minutes to die, then they realized that they were dying. So you always would find when you open the door some scratches in the walls of blood, they were going with their fingers scratching the walls to get safe at some place, there was no way."

[20 min]Müller: "Secondly, most people tried to push their way to the door. It was psychological: they knew where the door was, so maybe they could force their way. It was instinctive in the death struggle."

If a surge of panicking people pushed on such a flimsy door the people nearest the door would be crushed to death and then the latches would give and the door would burst open. And how believable is it that a door for 2000 people to go through on a regular basis is the size of a household door.

At the Heysel Stadium disaster, there were mostly men of the age 16 - 40
one can suppose, the strongest of man kind. On the other hand, the victims in
the gas chamber were the weakest of
man kind. The wall that collapsed in the stadium was free standing and people
were on top of it. Further, the wall was already structural defective:

"...the collapse of a defective wall was a major contributory factor to
the deaths”

The collapse of a wall at the Heysel stadium shows nothing but
that certain crowds can make certain constructions collapse. It does, however, not demonstrate and not even indicate that the
crowd in the gas chamber would have to burst open its door.

What actually needs to be done by Revisionists is to estimate the forces of the crowd on the door and the resistance of the door and
door parts. Was not done by denierbud.

The issue of crowd forces on the gas chamber door is not trivial. It is not the force that can be exerted by one person multiplied by 2000. Only a fraction of the potential muscles forces could have
been exerted on the door simply due to lack of space in the dense crowd and poor friction between possibly moist feet and concrete floor.

Moreover, only a fraction of the victims could have actually exerted their muscle force on the door. Forces of people in a chain do not accumulate infinitely but are inevitable capped by an upper limit, the pressure that is fatal for human beings. A dead or faint person cannot exert any force actively anymore. Provided that the door could resist the pressure that is just fatal or fainting for human beings, which seems intuitively a reasonable assumption, it would have been unlikely that the door was burst open just by the muscles forces of the crowd.

Crowds can also exert leaning forces. The concrete pillars and gas introduction columns were screening the door from most of the victims; leaning forces may have only effectively accumulated from the first concrete pillar to the door. But if the crowd collapsed at some point, it was screening the door from those farther back. On the other hand, if the gas chamber was packed so dense that the people could virtually not collapse, the bodies also had not much angle to exert large leaning forces.

Generally, forces in highly dense crowds are difficult to predict and up to day, there is no founded estimation specifically for the crowd forces on the gas chamber door and the latter's resistance.

However, we know from the fact that numerous witnesses have testified on homicidal gassings in Auschwitz without any reported incident of a door failure, that the crowd pressure on the gas chamber doors was always - or more conservatively: usually - less than the failure pressure of the same. There is no evidence presented by denierbud or any other Holocaust denier refuting this finding.

Crowd pressure vs. Gas Introduction Column

[20 min] And these columns through which Zyklon B was poured, Pressac’s book as a schematic diagram of it, which Pressac drew himself based on eyewitness claims. It looks like chicken wire. They would have been destroyed by the crowd also.

,

Same as before. Without knowledge of the crowd pressure and resistance of the column, no conclusion can be drawn whether it "would have been destroyed". Reportedly, certain crowd forces can bent free standing guard rails, but it is unclear whether the victims in the gas chamber could have destroyed the presumably fastened 5 cm thick iron bars and network of wire mesh.

Elevator

[20 min] Jean-Claude Pressac's book has a photo of the elevator too. It says “a provisional 300 kg capacity goods hoist used in Krematorium II".

[21 min] So the bodies would go on here, and this is a triangular bar with a stabilizing piece of wood here. How flimsy. Imagine you have 2000 bodies in the basement but maximum capacity 661 pounds. So with seven bodies going up at a time, you would have to make 285 trips. Why not just have a conveyer belt on an incline here. Like this. It says provisional as in temporary, but Carlo Mattogno in his book Auschwitz: The Case for Sanity makes a strong case that this was the elevator that remained for the entire war period.

It is false that the “maximum capacity” of the
provisional elevator was 300 kg/660 lbs. This figure actually referred to the “minimum
capacity” ordered from the metal workshop (see Pressac, Technique, p.488); the maximum or actually used capacity
may have been well above this.

The idea of a conveyer belt is pretty much
senseless in this context. Since the central construction office in Auschwitz did not even manage to purchase a simple goods elevator for crematorium 2 on time and were forced to install a provisional makeshift
one, it is safe to say it was hopeless to obtain a
proper conveyer belt.

Even the provisional elevator was sufficient to
handle the number of gassed corpses in the basement in relation to the
cremation rate of the ovens, as such a bottleneck is not evident from the sources.

The assumptions made by Mattogno to estimate its daily capacity seem unreasonable. It is entirely unclear why say two strong men would take more than a few seconds to displace a single corpse by less than a metre.

It is certainly possible to imagine a scenario that worked for the mass extermination. Assuming that 8 corpses were transported with each
load, that each transfer of the elevator to the next level took 1 minute and
that each corpse was loaded and unloaded in 10 s, it would have taken some 5
min to transfer 8 corpses or 20 hours for 2000 corpses - less or equal the time needed for the cremation part.

Denierbud asserts that Mattogno did make "a strong case that this was
the elevator that remained for the entire war period" but in the cited book it merely reads "it is not clear" whether a more powerful
elevator was installed after May 1944 (Mattogno, Auschwitz - The Case for Sanity, p. 51). So how Mattogno could make a "strong case" that the elevator was not upgraded when he says "it is not clear" is beyond me. Or why Mattogno did not urge for a correction when he viewed the clip (the so called "peer review"), and instead considered it "superb".

Hasty Generalization

[21 min] Germany is the country of BMW, Mercedes, Porsche, Volkswagen, Krups and Braun. Industrial design is part of their culture.

[22 min] So much so that in North America sometimes this is made into a parody. [...] Yet, the design at Auschwitz is so poor that it can't be believed.

This argument is so poor that it can't be believed.

That because some of the finest engineering originates from Germany, that conversely anything engineered by Germans must be fine too, is just hilarious. This is now hard to say for me - as a German - and it may come to surprise to denierbud, but some Germans have actually engineered crap in the past. It's just that you do not get a big player when you engineer crap, you vanish from the market.

Secondly, Germany's top engineers were hardly to be found among SS clerks in a prison camp, but rather in the industry.

Thirdly, conditions for developing and construction were not the best in 1942 - 1944, especially for non-armament industries. Furthermore, the conspirative and ethically questionable nature of the task to design mass murder facilities was a severe constraint. The point is, with restrictive conditions set, you obtain only the most feasible solution under these conditions even with the best people, but not the technologically and technically summit.

And last but not least, the design at Auschwitz was not poor. The cremation site was state of
the art at the time. The killing site was engineered to cope with the
pace of the body disposal.

33 comments:

- And it’s not believable that the Germans would have Jews of all the ethnicies of Europe run the killing operation since they are the ethnic that was most likely to format a revolt and a mutiny -

3) There's also another reason: the new arrivals would probably be put at ease by the sight of their fellows, and being tended by their fellows. What better way to calm them down and put them at ease by having fellow Jews be the ones to talk to them?

Just like in any prison system with trustees, such a practice would also help "divide and conquer" the prisoners by setting them against each other.

The Ugly voice is also generalizing. From what you've shown, a lot of his argument rests on the premise that gassing victims more often than not numbered 2000. However, the available documentation on deportations to Auschwitz indicates that this wasn't the case. Most deportations fell within the range of less than a thousand being selected for gassing, until they peaked during the Hungarian Aktion. Even then, since more than one Gas chamber was active, the total would have to be divided between them. Therefore, The Ugly Voice is setting up a straw man.

I've just self-published a fictional novel about the Holocaust called "My Mother's Ring: A Holocaust Historical Novel" if anyone is interested in reading it! It's available on Amazon.com-Dana Fitzwater Cornell

I note that the claim made by the notorious Internet stalker Carmelo Lisciotto that I am "Mike Peters" is false, as is already clear from the fact that Mike Peters was obviously interested in the Aktion Reinhardt camps, but not in debating holocaust deniers, whereas I am mostly focused on Auschwitz and only debate holocaust deniers.

Lisciotto's skills in identifying internet users are so poor that it is hard to believe.

Nice try HATERS, just because EVREY single point from this inane, annoying and hopelessly vague"Viewer's Guide to "Auschwitz" has been appropriately and comprehensively addressed and debunked...you turn to personal attacks, how quickly you “anonymous” haters show your true colours despite attempting to hide your real identities, what have you got to hide? Hans, it's a shame they come here to spread their filth, but at least we see them for what they are, pseudoscientific failures trying to force a conspiracy...it’s quite entertaining to read how they squirm as they are shot down in each post/reply!

It is instructive that pretty much the same stalking and smearing Carmelo Lisciotto is doing these days on Holocaust controversies, he already did back in 2005 on members of a weapon forum, e.g.:

"Re: Carmelo update and options

OPTIONS (one or more of these in combination):

1. Send a letter to Pega.com with a copy of the offending threads and explaining the following:

a. C. uses his website solely for the purpose of defamation.b. C. hijacked Drummond Lindsey's AR account and therefore cannot be trusted with computer security (crimnial violation).c. C. has hacked/attacked AR, Mike's home computer, my photobucket account and others probably as well (criminal violation).d. C. is using company time and/or equipment to engage in this conduct. Now that the company is aware of the problem, if it does not take action to solve it then the company will face joint liability with Carmelo for the defamation as a distributor of defamatory material.

[...]

2. Send a similar letter to wankerworld's web host which appears to be dotster.com

4. Send a similar letter to the FBI, Chicago field office, requesting a criminal investigation. It is unlikely that either the FBI or the Chicago cops would investigate as this situation does not involve a large amount of money or breach of security of a sensitive computer system (a bank, for example).

[...]

5. File a defamation lawsuit against Carmelo. Once that process is started it is extremely hard to back out of, and very expensive.

[...]

6. Strike a truce with Carmelo (removal of the offensive material and a promise that there will be no repeat or we will take the steps outlined above).

[Erik:]Option 6 would have to also include IMO, a "public" appology on AR to all of use, where he retracts each and every one of the accusations against us, and promises that he will better his ways, and seek professional medical help. And stay off both AR and NE.[/Erik]

[...]

The idea of a truce never entered my mind because C. has been so insane in the past.

What do you guys want to do? If we perform steps 1-4, then it is all out war. I don't think anyone is interested in step 5, although it sounds like Carmelo is not in a position to pay counsel for his defense.

ErikD

1-4 is what Carmen definatly deserves. But, we must ask ourselves if getting the guy fired (even though he deserves to be) is the right thing to do, taking into consideration that he has a wife and kids to support (If that's true, and not just something he said to Don to make Don feel sorry for him).

Jeez, it sounds like I'm all sensitive.

[...]

On the otherhand, he has had so many opportunities to stop digging the hole he's in that he doesn't really deserve a second (or is it 50th?) chance. The recent outburst that he had with the pimp/nazi/child-abuse crap came out of the blue, and was totally unprevoked. He hasn't been the topic of discussion on AR for some time, so he had no good reason to "retaliate" against us. And lets not forget the time when we were all accused of being NAMBLA members, and God knows what else. I'm sure John or others have copies of those posts too."

Note in particular that Lisciotto had apparently accused members of this fire arms forum of "child-abuse" and "of being NAMBLA members", i.e. the similar smear he is trying with the former member of Aktion Reinhard Camps website Mike Peters.

It is clear from Lisciotto's history of stalking and smearing that this is a pathological issue not originally triggered by the ARC feud. Sergey, Nick, Roberto and Mike Peters only had the bad luck that Carmelo dropped his obsession with the fire arms guys or considered them a more useful target for acting out his disorder at the time.

And my bad luck was that I dared to defended Nick, Sergey and Roberto against Lisciotto's hate campaign at the CODOH Forum, which suddenly turned him mad on me too, falsely identifying me as Mike Peters.

Thanks for your support, Nathan and Alan. But be aware that this may cause Lisciotto targetting and smearing you too.

I find it peculiar that 'Hans' simply won't accept the invitation from the ARC group and prove them wrong..To lend a phrase from silly HC-underling Alan Rembach: “what have you got to hide”?If 'Hans' is right we can all dance the macarena, aye.

OUCH!! WOW!!! I seem to have struck a real nerve!! :P LOL!!! HAHA!You guys are desperate and your arguments are moot. How funny, you have not convinced anyone of your hateful conspiracy theories. Not even close. You should be ashamed, you have FAILED!! No wonder you hide behind aliases. I have a fairly open mind, and a scientific background, and all you trolls do is try and twist facts where there is a paucity of data...and try and defame those who so easily beat you. Just because there is no physical evidence or something doesn't make sense in your mind, doesn't mean it didn't happen. Nazis were dumb, they lost, they couldn't even complete the final solution in its entirety, letting 10's of 1000's of eyewitness victims survive and tell the world of this most abhorrent crime. I wish for one second you could be transported back in time to see and feel what it was like...you'd change your mind in a second, but maybe not, maybe you've been programmed to be prejudice and you're too far gone? Anyway, enjoy the "Jew free" Europa you have. How's your tolerance of Islam going? LOL!

"First of all, there is actually a possible technical reason for burying the execution sites under the earth - you dampen the screams of the victims. In fact, one of the concern with the gassings in the old crematorium in the main camp was the noise from the victims. Motor vehicles were started during the gassing operation to drown down the noise (see How Reliable and Authentic is the Broad Report?)"

Holocaust inanity! You go on to admit that Krema II was not originally designed to be a Nazi death factory, but a crematorium and morgue, so here, your "possible technical reason" is completely irrelevant, and to Krema III of course (the only two semi-submerged "gas chambers" at Auschwitz). Whilst the supposed purpose built gas chamber/crematoriums (Kremas IV & V) were built at ground level. How does that fit into your "possible technical reason for burying the execution sites under the earth - you dampen the screams of the victims."

- Holocaust inanity! You go on to admit that Krema II was not originally designed to be a Nazi death factory, but a crematorium and morgue, so here, your "possible technical reason" is completely irrelevant, and to Krema III of course (the only two semi-submerged "gas chambers" at Auschwitz). Whilst the supposed purpose built gas chamber/crematoriums (Kremas IV & V) were built at ground level. How does that fit into your "possible technical reason for burying the execution sites under the earth - you dampen the screams of the victims."-

The mind is a really wonderful thing if you know how to use it properly. So are the eyes.

Hans wasn't talking about all of the Gas Chambers, nor was he laying out the "guidelines" followed by the Nazis about how to set them up; He was responding to the UV's babbling about the supposed impracticality of the underground Crematorium 2. This section that you quote appears right after the UV's babbling about "Why underground?". The UV claimed that an underground Gas chamber doesn't make sense, Hans proposed a reason for why it makes sense. Nothing more. Your babbling about Kremas IV and V is irrelevant and little more than a straw man.

- How does that fit into your "possible technical reason for burying the execution sites under the earth - you dampen the screams of the victims."-

This reasoning only applies to Kremas II and III, which were underground to begin with, and setting up IV and V underground as well would've taken too much effort, even with the possible benefit Hans mentioned, so they didn't bother? Maybe they're not mutually exclusive?

Seriously: the mind is a wonderful thing when you actually try to use it.

No wonder you "responded" in this article instead of in the first one: the readers would be able to see right through the shit you're trying to pull over their eyes if they scrolled up and actually read it.

We've established before that you probably weren't paying attention in logic class. Obviously, you weren't paying attention in debate and reading comprehension class, either. But then, since when have idiots ever needed either logic, proper debate or reading skills?

"Holocaust inanity! You go on to admit that Krema II was not originally designed to be a Nazi death factory, but a crematorium and morgue, so here, your "possible technical reason" is completely irrelevant, and to Krema III of course (the only two semi-submerged "gas chambers" at Auschwitz)."

You did not carefully read what I said how the possible technical reason may come into play as was in fact explained in the the next but one paragraph:

"Of course, it would have been possible to move the basements on ground level. But only with additional efforts, time, costs (possible work for the underground site was already started) and with possible drawbacks such as more noise from the victims and that long term corpse storage in the crematorium in case of a stop of the extermination policy would be more difficult. In the sum, the SS obviously did not see a significant benefit from taken the basement on ground level. Indeed, the bottleneck of the extermination in Auschwitz was not bringing the victims down in the basement and the corpses up to ovens, but the body disposal in the oven room was the limiting step."

"Whilst the supposed purpose built gas chamber/crematoriums (Kremas IV & V) were built at ground level. How does that fit into your "possible technical reason for burying the execution sites under the earth - you dampen the screams of the victims."

First of all, I did not say anything about "purpose built" crematorium 4 and 5 for extermination. That's a straw man, as far as I'm concerned. The memo of Fritz Ertl from 21 August 1942 that the ovens of crematoria 4 and 5 were to be "erected...at the 'bathing installations for special actions'" suggests (not conclusively though) that the crematoria may have been intended to incinerate the corpses accumulated at the Bunker 1 and 2 killing sites, and that gas chambers may have been implemented at a later stage.

Crematoria 4 and 5 are clearly a light or pared down version of the large crematoria, which is indicative that the Auschwitz SS was bothered to save time or money for their construction.

So IF the sites were planned from the scratch for mass killing and IF crematorium 2 and 3 were kept half down to "dampen the screams of the victims", then it would simply indicate that the same was not realized at crematorium 4 and 5 because of resources/time concerns.

"First of all, I did not say anything about "purpose built" crematorium 4 and 5 for extermination. That's a straw man, as far as I'm concerned. - Hans

I didn't state that you did. Implying that I did, is a straw man as far as anyone (partisan yappers such as Nathan aside) is concerned.

"The memo of Fritz Ertl from 21 August 1942 that the ovens of crematoria 4 and 5 were to be "erected...at the 'bathing installations for special actions'" suggests (not conclusively though) that the crematoria may have been intended to incinerate the corpses accumulated at the Bunker 1 and 2 killing sites, and that gas chambers may have been implemented at a later stage." - Hans

Construction of K5 began November 20, 1942, whilst the 107,000 "corpses accumulated at the Bunker 1 and 2 killing sites" had all been exhumed (and presumably cremated) by the end of November 1942. Following Himmler's summer of 42 order to burn all the corpses, Eichmann's office sent cremation-in-pits guru Blobel to Auschwitz to take Hoess a crash-course on cremation at Chelmno. Hoess makes no mention of plans for building crematoria "intended to incinerate the corpses accumulated at the Bunker 1 and 2 killing sites".

"Crematorium IV and V were the first buildings designed, from inception, to operate as killing machines, with gas chambers, a morgue, and a furnace hall arranged in a functional sequence. Bunkers 1 and 2, crematorium I, and, as we shall see, crematoria II and III were all transformed into extermination centers."- Van Pelt & Dwork, Auschwitz 1270 to the Present, p.321.

My original point about "the supposed purpose built gas chamber/crematoriums (Kremas IV & V)" was, clearly, in reference to this. Something Van Pelt has reiterated on numerous occasions. I though that would have been obvious to a professed Auschwitz expert such as yourself Hans.

"So IF the sites were planned from the scratch for mass killing and IF crematorium 2 and 3 were kept half down to "dampen the screams of the victims", then it would simply indicate that the same was not realized at crematorium 4 and 5 because of resources/time concerns. - Hans

Please provide anything, anything at all; the testimony of a survivor made in the 21st century will do, that backs-up your fantasy about the kellers of K2 and K3 having been maintained in the design due to Nazi concerns about people screaming.

"I didn't state that you did. Implying that I did, is a straw man as far as anyone (partisan yappers such as Nathan aside) is concerned."

Your statement indeed suggested to the reader that I would share the claim that crematorium 4 and 5 were "supposed purpose built gas chamber/crematoriums (Kremas IV & V)", precisely because you did not specify who is making the statement and because you asked me to explain the supposed contradiction.

If you did not mean to say so, thia does not free you from the straw man, as it matters what your argument is provoking among the reader, less what you actually meant but failed to speak out. Be more exact the next time.

"Construction of K5 began November 20, 1942, whilst the 107,000 "corpses accumulated at the Bunker 1 and 2 killing sites" had all been exhumed (and presumably cremated) by the end of November 1942. Following Himmler's summer of 42 order to burn all the corpses, Eichmann's office sent cremation-in-pits guru Blobel to Auschwitz to take Hoess a crash-course on cremation at Chelmno. Hoess makes no mention of plans for building crematoria "intended to incinerate the corpses accumulated at the Bunker 1 and 2 killing sites"."

Okay, I was obviusly too sloppy in my wording (as have you been above on crematoria 4 and 5). Actually I was refering to the daily accumulation of corpses at the Bunker sites. Given the capacity of the crematoria of 800 to 1600 corpses per day, they were sufficent to dispose the daily killings at the Bunker but not to dispose 100,000 corpses in short time.

"My original point about "the supposed purpose built gas chamber/crematoriums (Kremas IV & V)" was, clearly, in reference to this. Something Van Pelt has reiterated on numerous occasions. I though that would have been obvious to a professed Auschwitz expert such as yourself Hans."

You did not referenced Van Pelt, which suggested I was sharing the view or it was some kind of a given fact. That's why I emphasized it is a straw man far as I am concerned.

As far as I know, there is no conclusive evidence for the view that crematorium 4 and 5 have been designed as killing facilities from the scratch.

Pressac mentions that a stove appears already on the very first blueprint of the morgue wing, but some crematoria literature does also specify heating equipment for morgues, so that is not a smoking gun.

"Please provide anything, anything at all; the testimony of a survivor made in the 21st century will do, that backs-up your fantasy about the kellers of K2 and K3 having been maintained in the design due to Nazi concerns about people screaming."

Unjustified request, as I was not claiming that the crematoria 2 and 3 gassing sites were kept down because of such concerns.

I argued in response to denierbud's argument "Why not have it be above ground?" that it is possible that such concerns did play a role.

"Possible" means that there is at best indirect evidence providing some likelyhood to the explanation (namely, the fact that the noise of the victims was an issue in the crematorium in the Auschwitz main camp), but there is no direct evidence demonstrating or refuting it.

That's a much weaker statement that does not require direct evidence, but only some plausible and reasonable consideration and lack of counter-evidence in order to be a valid explanation.

"1.Posting by Hans from deathcamps.org on the Axis History Forum on 22 December 2002"

The fact that I was posting information from death-camps.org in the Third Reich Forum does not consist any evidence whatsoever that I was also a member of the deathcamps.org team. Since this was public information, any vistor googling or clicking through the site, could find and post it.

Conversely, if the argument were valid, it would mean anybody accessing and citing the public information on deathcamps.org was also a member of the site. How many citations does ARC site has and many hundreds of "members" (and Mike Peters!) would this make?

"2. Posting by Hans / Mike Peters from RODOH on 17 September 2003"

Holocaust denier "David Hebden" wondered if I was ARC member or supporter "Johannes F., Germany".

Since Revisionist Hebden was obviously not involved at ARC, he could not have any idea about whether I was involved at ARC and merely speculated ("it's just a hunch") about this as I was occasionaly citing the site. In other words, he was committing the same fallacy as already done in point 1).

Moreover, even if Hebden had any specific knowledge, the statement would actually contradict the claim that I was Mike Peters.

"3.Posting by Hans / Mike Peters from RODOH on 5 July 2003"

The fact that I was quoting a guestbook entry by Mike Peters he made at the Holocaust History Project homepage does not consist "clearest evidence that Mike Peters and Hans are the same person". Frankly, it is no evidence at all that I am Mike Peters. It merely shows that I considered the guestbook entry interesting to share with RODOH members. If that's the "clearest" evidence you have, you have nothing indeed.

In actual fact, Peters is displaying a different linguistic style than me. He says "re Treblinka photos" and "supportive" but not once in my numerous postings at the former RODOH forum (more than half a million of words, including quotes) I was using the expressions "re" and "supportive".

"4.Posting by Sergey Romanov on RODOH on 21 May 2005"

The posting quoted here is not from Sergey Romanov, but from Holocaust denier David Hebden who speculated without having any knowledge whatsover that "Mr. Hans can use his connections with the ARFCI website". Again, his speculation is merely based on the fact that I quoted the supposed official Franke-Gricksch report from the ARC site.

The fact that I ignored Hebden's remark and was not able to provide any additional information on file as requested by Hebden rather supports that I was not a ARC member. I never showed any insider knowledge with regards to ARC site at RODOH , which is odd if I was really a member.

"5.Posting by Hans / Mike Peters from RODOH on 14 January 2006"

I was citing again the ARC cite on gas vans in Auschwitz and suggested that Sergey Romanov is a member of ARC.

But I did not guess about Sergey's membership because of any ARC insider knowledge, but because the site stated that "our ARC member from Russia has found..." and what was found Sergey Romanov posted previosuly at the H-Net discussion site (http://h-net.msu.edu/cgi-bin/logbrowse.pl?trx=vx&list=h-holocaust&month=0512&week=c&msg=/LFuzMGIZ2Mq34s8KZDX2Q&user=&pw=).

So this was publicly available information that showed that Sergey Romanov was a member of ARC.

I asked ARC members Roberto and Sergey "can you give some more details about was going on and wrong in the ARC team?" which actually shows that I was not a member of ARC!

"7.Posting by Hans / Mike Peters from RODOH on 26 November 2007"

This is further evidence I was not a member of the ARC team and not involved in the ARC feud. I ask RODOH members which of the two ARC duplicates is the good (Sergey, Roberto etc.) and which is the bad one (Lisciotto, Weber). Which I would have known, if I were a member of ARC.

"8.Posting on RODOH about Babi Yar"

This posting has nothing to do with me.

"9.Posting on RODOH by Nick Terry on 30 December 2009"

Nick says that I can "participate in sensible informed discussions" and (perhaps) that I would be "welcomed over at HC". How this compliment is evidence for ARC membership or that I am Mike Peters is beyond me.

"10.Posting by Mike Peters / Hans on RODOH on 29 June 2011"

I point out that I am not Mike Peters. If anything, this posting suggests that I am not Mike Peters rather than the opposite.

So let me summarize: I did not display any insider knowledge that could be interpreted as evidence for ARC membership (but not even this would be conclusive as such knowledge could have been also passed on from others).

Instead, I only cited publicly available information with regards to ARC and actually showed ignorance at RODOH with regards what was going on at ARC. So the evidence actually points to the exact opposite direction that I was not a ARC member, as I have always mainainted and never claimed otherwise, which is also odd. There is no reason why I should have not been proud on ARC membership before it broke up.

Moreover, the fact that Mike Peters was clearly focused on ARC camps, whereas I was from the beginning of my debate activities in 2001 at John Ball's forum largely focused on Auschwitz with only rudimentary interest in ARC camps. In fact, the number of times I posted about Treblinka, Belzec and Sobibor at RODOH is neglectable compared to the number of postings on Auschwitz.

And if I were Mike Peters with his focus on ARC camps, how comes it that I did not contribute to the critique?

The reason he made up the story is because I critized Lisciotto for his bashing of HC members at the CODOH forum. Mentally disturbed as he is he immeaditely jumped to the claim I am Mike Peters simply because I am also a German. For the same reason, he claimed for example that RODOH poster dmitry is Sergey Romanov because they are both Russians, even though they have clearly a different educational background and cannot be the same persons.

Come on, you claim - without evidence as usual - that Mike Petes has committed several crimes and then wonder why I am emphazising that we are not the same person? Not even you can be so dumb, so you must be manipulative.

If Carmelo Liscitto were not spamming the internet with his unfounded accusation towards Peters, I would not care whether somebody misidentifies me as him. But since it is known that if you just thrown enough dirt on somebody, some people will believe the defamation even if there are false, I do care about the misidentification and correct it accordingly.